President Trump's pro-life proclamation

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m wondering if you misunderstand my point. I’m not claiming that because I don’t need help, nobody does. Someone else made the claim that: that people with erratic and part time incomes ‘need’ government assistance.

I’m stating that is not true for several reasons.
  1. Many of us with such incomes actually can and do manage. And by the way, my spouse also left us. I’m doing this largely on my own.
  2. Many of those on such incomes are not the sole providers for their families.
  3. Perhaps most importantly, there is an assumption running through this discussion that without all these government programs, there would be nothing at all to help people.
I was also making the point that it’s a little unfair of him to be willing to pay more taxes and thereby feel free to volunteer ALL of us to pay more taxes because, just because he has more expendable income to be forcibly taken from him by the government does not mean I do.

Those who want to give more to those in need have a wealth (no pun) of charities to which they might give.
 
Dan123 said:
But “I can do it so everyone else can” ignores the fact that not everyone’s situation is the same
Click to expand...
That’s not what I said. You made a blanket statement that people with irregular and part time work need government assistance. I’m saying that YOUR statement is not universally true.
 
Poet said:
just because he has more expendable income to be forcibly taken from him by the government does not mean I do.
Click to expand...
Ckearly, tax increases ought not be falling on those who struggle. But whether the current horrendously skewed distribution of incomes and wealth in the US should be left alone is an important question.
 
CorydonMundi said:
Rules trump right out. The guy can barely form a sentence
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go that far, but certainly he’s far from the best speechmaker. And I’d rather have a lousy speechmaker with good policies, than a demagogue with evil policies such as Hillary, Obama, Sanders, Pelosi or any of their ilk.
 
Poet said:
But the fact is, the higher we’re taxed, the less we have to give to charity.
Click to expand...
As common as the claim that lower taxes=more money to charity (to any significant degree) is among opponents of government social welfare programs, I’ve yet to see someone provide actual hard proof of it.

Maybe said proof does exist, but again it hasn’t been demonstrated. But you claim it is “fact”–so can you demonstrate it is a fact rather than a baseless supposition?
 
Last edited:
JSRG said:
Maybe said proof does exist, but again it hasn’t been demonstrated. But you claim it is “fact”–so can you demonstrate it is a fact rather than a baseless supposition?
Click to expand...
I can demonstrate it with basic math.

Jane has 10,000 a year. Her expenses are 8000 year including taxes. She gives the remaining 2,000 to charity.

Government raises taxes by 1,000/year.

Jane now has 1,000 available to give to charity.

It is a mathematical fact that the higher our taxes, the less money we have available to spend anywhere else.

I understand that human behavior is a little more complex than this. But it remains true that the higher they raise our taxes, the less is available in each person’s bank account for anything else.
 
The issue is if Jan will use that money for charity or for herself.
 
Rau said:
Ckearly, tax increases ought not be falling on those who struggle. But whether the current horrendously skewed distribution of incomes and wealth in the US should be left alone is an important question.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe wealth is being ‘distributed’ in this country–apart from maybe to people like Hunter Bide who are acquiring tens of thousands of dollars a month under the guise of doing a job in which he has no knowledge, but in truth for being access to the then-vice president.

For the most part, people are making choices about their education, their career field, etc. I have a friend, a professor, who actually thinks he’s entitled to some of his neighbor, the brain surgeon’s, wealth because the brain surgeon has more than he, the professor, does.

What my friend fails to realize is that
  1. he made the decision to be a professor rather than a brain surgeon, knowing full well that brain surgeons earn more.
  2. if he’s entitled to the brain surgeon’s money, despite the fact that he himself chose not to go through medical school and take people’s lives into his very hands…then I am entitled to a big chunk of his money, despite the fact I chose to end my education where I did and stay home with my children, rather than pursue a Ph.D. and have no children, as he did.
Might I note that this conversation has really gone off the rails from a simple applauding of President Trump standing up for the unborn. I find it really sad that the hatred of President Trump is so intense, even here, that the man cannot even say a word against abortion without being slammed from every corner.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
The issue is if Jan will use that money for charity or for herself.
Click to expand...
Obviously we all make those choices. The mathematical fact remains that the more government takes from us forcibly, the less we HAVE AT ALL to give to charity.

And if the underlying suggestion is that government has a right to FORCE us to give on the assumption that we can’t decide for ourselves to do good or choose the charities we think are good–that in itself is disturbing.
 
Poet said:
I don’t believe wealth is being ‘distributed’ in this country–apart from maybe to people like Hunter Bide who are acquiring tens of thousands of dollars a month under the guise of doing a job in which he has no knowledge, but in truth for being access to the then-vice president.
Click to expand...
Nice. So basically you’re choosing to ignore the massive collection of wealth among the ultra-rich. This isn’t some opinion thing, it’s an objective measurable fact that more and more of the nations wealth is being held by fewer and fewer people.
Poet said:
I have a friend, a professor, who actually thinks he’s entitled to some of his neighbor, the brain surgeon’s, wealth because the brain surgeon has more than he, the professor, does.
Click to expand...
I have serious doubts that you’re presenting this in a way that fairly represents your friend’s opinion. Do they think the surgeon should write them a check, or do they think a social services safety net should exist?
 
Poet said:
And if the underlying suggestion is that government has a right to FORCE us to give on the assumption that we can’t decide for ourselves to do good or choose the charities we think are good–that in itself is disturbing.
Click to expand...
It’s somewhat consistent with the human condition.
 
Poet said:
Jane has 10,000 a year. Her expenses are 8000 year including taxes. She gives the remaining 2,000 to charity.

Government raises taxes by 1,000/year.

Jane now has 1,000 available to give to charity.
Click to expand...
This is true for everything though so why are you only mentioning taxes? If the price of gas goes up Jane has less money for charity, if the price of food goes up Jane has less money for charity.

Perhaps we should consider that the states who pay for social services through tax revenues tend to have fewer people in need than the ones who rely on private charity.
 
Poet said:
I don’t believe wealth is being ‘distributed’
Click to expand...
The “distribution of wealth” is the measurable wealth of all individuals. In the US it is highly skewed (quite a bit more than in other advanced western countries). The top few % having an extraordinary multiple of that held by the bottom few %. Governments, through progressive taxation systems, typically seek to moderate that to varying degrees. Most think that’s a good thing to do, but many also disagree.
 
Last edited:
Dan123 said:
How much is it going to cost us to re-verify everyone’s eligibility every week? Are you going to fund that huge expansion of bureaucracy by spending more tax money or reducing benefits, hybrid, something else?
Click to expand...
the program is in place, this is not new. the work requirement waiver is just being reviewed.

why are people against testing to see if a person truly needs assistance?

what is wrong with the able-bodied person working? the program wasn’t meant to be a “Freedom Dividend”
 
JSRG said:
I think that if all states do with proportional electors, we’d need to make an actual constitutional amendment. Not to allow states to do so, but to deal with the fact we’d see elections with no one getting a majority of electors.
Click to expand...
The drafters of the Constitution did not necessarily intend for the electors to choose the president each and every time. The electors would choose a president if they could. If there were majority support for someone, then that man (and it would have been a man) would become president. Ditto for vice president. However, if nobody secured a majority, then the House/Senate procedure was “Plan B”, so to speak. The Constitution does not presuppose such things as popular voting, parties, or campaigns in selecting the president and vice president. All of those things morphed into being later.
JSRG said:
And I have a feeling this could happen a decent amount. In the 2016 election, neither Trump nor Hillary would have won a majority of the electors due two electors being awarded to Gary Johnson and one to Ewan McMullin (or maybe it was the other way around, I can’t remember, the point is the same either way).
Click to expand...
Where are you getting this from? Assigning electors proportionally from the national vote totals? And which states would they have come from? This sounds more like European-style proportional representation (which can be even more bizarre than the electoral college!).
 
It certainly is the urging of The Holy Spirit and the workings of Grace in that we are each created in the image and likeness of GOD our Creator that the pursuit of more opportunity for work, helping families have a living wage in the providing a more just society.
There are those working on pro active ways to foster an increase of this.


~


~
And others. These type of human dignity centered ideas are part of the Gospel of Life faithful witness to bring back the better ideals in law and practice based on The Founding Creeds, Self-Evident Creator Given Rights, and Bill of Rights of our land.
~
So is providing help as Good Counsel Homes, Sisters of Life, Guiding Star, Project Rachel for post abortive healing.
~
This is far more than ‘one issue,’ with so many being related to this by virtue of the God given dignity, value, and Sacredness of every single human being; that we all intrinsically have, like every child in the womb, every sick or elderly person - and every dad & mom who deserve an atmosphere that fosters and encourages an informed conscience on this; conscience freedom not to participate in child killing, freedom of speech - with much oppression going on right now in our open society.
~
The Lord Jesus Christ commanded fostering a hope for more of The Kingdom of GOD to be present, with a Grace led self-giving assertive attitude.
~
" Life, truth, love: words full of stimulating suggestions for human efforts in the world. They are rooted in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, but they are also impressed upon the hearts and yearnings of every man and woman."
" 3. The evidence shows with increasing clarity how policies and laws opposed to life are causing societies to decline, not only morally but demographically and economically. The Encyclical’s message can therefore be presented not only as true and authentic guidelines for moral rebirth, but also as a reference-point for civil salvation.

Thus, there is no reason for that type of defeatist mentality which claims that laws opposed to the right to life - those which legalize abortion, euthanasia, sterilization and methods of family planning opposed to life and the dignity of marriage - are inevitable and now almost a social necessity. On the contrary, they are a seed of corruption for society and its foundations.

The civil and moral conscience cannot accept this false inevitability, any more than the idea that war or interethnic extermination is inevitable."
excerpts from: ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II AT THE COMMEMORATION OF THE FIFTH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE ENCYCLICAL “EVANGELIUM VITAE” Monday, 14 February 2000
This is extremely apropos in the decades up until now, and now. The urgency of now, (ref. Letter From Birmingham Jail), should not fall away to gradualism.
~
We need to be proactive, and join proactive ministries. Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top